SAA & British Airways Policies & Procedures for Children & Disabled Persons: briefings; Committee Annual Report 2005: adoption

Discussion

The Chair asked Mr L Nzimande (ANC), who had been a passenger on flight SAA 171, to inform the Committee of what he had experienced that day.

Mr Nzimande said that he was pleased that the report would include a report from the passengers because they would give a different angle on the treatment of the disabled persons. He commented that disabled people were compromised. The crew ‘s report could not be accepted at face value, as a lot of what had happened went deeper in terms of the crew ‘s attitude, consciousness and the manner in which they handled disabled issues.

Mr Nzimande pointed out the following inconsistencies with Ms O ‘Sullivan’s presentation:
• Disabled people were compromised when the captain only allowed three disabled people to board the aircraft. Mr Nzimande remarked that he believes that there is a breakdown of the number of staff to people with disabilities per flight and explained in his count there were seven crew members on the aircraft, enough staff for all the passengers who were to fly with disability. If he had made a mistake with the numbers because he is blind, he still did not understand where the crew went wrong because the number of people with disabilities who flew to Malawi was exactly the same as those who were to fly out of Malawi. He commented that he did not understand what SAA‘s policy on the numbers was based on. Rationalising the numbers on the grounds of safety also make no sense. Mr Nzimande then expressed that the number issue needs to be revisited and debated because it seems to have originated from someone‘s fears and not fact.
• The allegation that there were suddenly more people with disabilities on the aircraft implies that the doors of the aircraft were not manned and that passengers with disability snuck onto the aircraft.
• In terms of agents booking passengers incorrectly, this needs to be revisited as it is also the responsibility of ticket clerks at the airport to take cognisance of whether a passenger is an OSI or a SSR. They can also pick up that a passenger is disabled when they collect up their tickets.

The Chair expressed that the ratio of staff to people with disabilities should be clarified, and requested questions from the Committee.

Mr V Gore (ID) agreed with Mr Nzimande‘s submission that the airline‘s rationalisations on the numbers should be revisited. He commented further that this issue probably comes down to a lack of understanding and should be viewed in light of our Constitution which includes two important components: (1) that everyone is equal and no one should be discriminated against and (2) people have a right to dignity.

Ms B T Ngcobo (ANC) agreed with Mr Nzimande‘s analysis that Ms O ‘Sullivan‘s presentation did not make sense where she said that there were additional people with disabilities on board. She commented further that passengers probably had to remain behind because the flight was probably overbooked, and that it was passengers with disability who were compromised.

Ms O’ Sullivan responded that the additional passengers with disability had not snuck onto the aircraft and that she did not know how they got on. The passengers were not turned away on account of the flight being overbooked because the flight was not overbooked. The passengers did not fly on the aircraft because the crew decided in terms of safety regulations they could not fly because they would have arrived in unsafe conditions.

Mr Van Rooyen explained that regulations stipulate that four to six cabin crew members were allowed on the kind of aircraft that flew out of Malawi and with this only six passengers with reduced mobility were allowed on the plane.

Ms O ‘Sullivan added that SAA would be joining a network of international airlines called Star Alliance, and that their membership to the alliance will require SAA to meet international standards and provide them with a platform on which they can compare and consult with international carriers on their policies.

Mr Gore added that he and other people with disability had experienced problems with other airlines such as Nationwide and that in general other role players in the traveling industry need to be involved in the process. He commented that although SAA was the best airline in his opinion, it could not be absolved of its responsibilities.

Mr S Njikelana (ANC) agreed with Ms O’ Sullivan’s proposal to make quarterly reports to the Committee and for SAA staff to undergo sensitivity training. He also supported Mr Nzimande‘s request that SAA provide a fair rationalisation for its policies.

Ms N F Mazibuko (ANC, NCOP, Limpopo) commented that the captain’s refusal to allow passengers with disability on flight SAA 171 amounted to discrimination which should be investigated. She commented further that she had experienced the arrogant behaviour of SAA staff on a number of occasions and that they should be trained according to the "batho pele" principle (translation: people first) as the customer who pays their salary is always right, and it is the staff’s duty to accommodate the customer and make them feel comfortable.

Ms Mazibuko added that policies were not cast in stone and that SAA should revisit its policies on the number of disabled people who can fly aboard an aircraft at any given time. The policy that disabled people cannot fly on flights that are too early in the morning or too late in the evening is one that she believed to be discriminatory.

Mr R M Sonto (ANC) expressed concern that if this incident had taken place with ordinary people with disabilities and not Members of Parliament, the matter would probably have gone unnoticed, described as a security measure and forgotten. He expressed that it should not take incidents like this for service providers to wake up and apply correct measures.

Mr A F Madella welcomed SAA‘s plan for a disability forum. He acknowledged Ms O ‘Sullivan‘s statement that the incident should not have taken place, however, he contended that her statement was contradictory because after saying the incident should not have happened, she then tried to justify why it happened at all. He remarked that Ms O’ Sullivan should have not have concluded by justifying why the incident took place but rather that such things should not happen again.

An ANC Committee Member stated that the issue of seating arrangements had to be revised. He explained that he had once sat next to an exit and a crew member told him to move because they would need strong people to open the door in times of emergency.

Mr Van Rooyen‘s response was that it is not only people with restricted mobility that are not permitted to sit next to the emergency exit, but also children and people who do not speak English. He would again look at the reasoning behind the seating. He also expressed that he would make sure that the policy which did not allow disabled passengers to fly in the early mornings and late evenings was changed immediately.

Mr MJC Mzondeki (ANC) commented that people with disabilities have experience and that they should sit on SAA‘s forum as opposed to consultants because consultants often gave poor advice.

The Chair said that deaf people were often told to take off their hearing aids on flights and that hearing aids helped them with their balance and to listen to the crew. She commented that such actions were insensitive to disabled people.

Ms O’ Sullivan agreed that SAA‘s policies were not cast in stone and that the issue that the Chair had raised with regard to deaf persons was currently being looked at. She remarked that the forum of persons with disability would look at the valuable suggestions made by the Committee and that SAA hoped to draw in other carriers in the whole process.

The Chair indicated that the Committee would continue to meet with SAA until disabled people were satisfied with their services and expressed an interest in the airline‘s policies with regards to children which would be dealt with in another meeting.

British Airways presentation

Mr D Young (BA) presented British Airways policy (see document). He mentioned that British Airways was hoping to join a committee called IOSA which airlines can only join through an invite.

Discussion

Ms Mazibuko commented that British Airways policy that pregnant women were not allowed to fly from 36 weeks onwards was discriminatory, and questioned Mr Young on what would happen in the event that a pregnant woman had an emergency and needed to fly?

Ms Mazibuko also asked whether the airline’s policies such as the requirement that an unaccompanied minor supply the airline with a birth certificate were cast in stone.

Mr Nzimande asked whether Mr Young knew of any incidents where British Airways refused passengers the right to get on or off the aircraft.

Ms Ngcobo explained that she had flown on British Airways a number of times and that when she was issued a ticket, but had to take another flight a day later because of illness or emergency, she had to pay double for the second flight. She asked Mr Young why this was the case and whether their prices fluctuated. She also asked whether kulula.com had a minimum number of disabled passengers for its flights for safety reasons or aircraft limitations.

Ms J Chalmers (ANC) remarked that when she had flown on British Airways, passengers were not allowed on board if they had infectious diseases and asked Mr Young how the airline determined whether a passenger had an infectious disease?

Mr Young replied that medical evidence had shown that there is a high risk that a pregnant woman could lose her baby while she was on board. He would rather be seen as discriminatory than have people lose their babies.

On unaccompanied minors, Mr Young explained that sometimes minors were involved in sensitive issues such as divorce and that their procedures were necessary because they ensured that the minors were not handed over to the wrong person.

Mr Young stated that kulula.com had a midnight flight that was restricted. He mentioned that he would take this matter up with his executive committee and that he would provide the Committee with feedback.

Mr Young, in reply to the question whether the airline had ever denied carriage to a person, explained that the airline was not perfect and that it had denied passengers the right to board flights. He however added that in an instance where an error had been made, British Airways would make the client an alternative offer.

Mr Young‘s response to Ms Ncgobo‘s question on additional costs was that passengers who had to take a later flight for illness or emergency would not be charged extra if they produced a doctor‘s certificate or a death certificate.

Mr Young explained that British Airways had to be made aware of infectious diseases for the safety of all passengers on board.

Mr Young pointed out that he had experienced two incidents where passengers had died at the airport and that they needed people to be conscious and able to communicate before they got on board. If a passenger was frail, British Airways preferred that they traveled with someone to assist them.

Mr Mzondeki asked what measures British Airways had in place to assist persons who needed medical attention, and whether the airline had personnel who were trained in medical emergency procedures

The Chair remarked that both British Airways and SAA should answer the question.

Mr Young responded that on each shift they had a safety officer to identify hazards and they had a contract with Netcare to be on the scene of an incident within 30 minutes.

Mr A Meyer (SAA) remarked that SAA had a medical assistant and clinic in Cape Town and that they planned to start one in Durban. However, there were no such structures at the smaller airports.

The Chair thanked SAA and British Airways for their presentations.

Committee Business Plan and 2005 Annual Report

The Committee agreed that Members would review the business plan on their own and discuss the plan in the next meeting (see document).

The Chair put the Committee’s 2005 annual report for adoption which was unanimously agreed to.

The meeting was adjourned.